Dr C V Ramesh vs. The Bruhath Bengalore Mahanagara Palike
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, represented by Sri Dhiren C. Ashok, filed a writ petition challenging demand notices dated July 3, 2024, issued by the Assistant Director, Town Planning, South Zone, Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). These notices demanded payment towards Ground Rent (including GST), Labour Cess, and other additional charges. The petitioners sought to quash these notices. The Court noted that the issue was substantially covered by a coordinate bench's judgment in W.P.No.23086/2022 and connected matters, which had addressed similar demands related to ground rent and other levies by the BBMP.
Held
The Court held that the core issue in the present writ petition was substantially covered by the authoritative pronouncement of a coordinate bench in W.P.No.23086/2022 and connected matters. Consequently, the Court followed that judgment. The coordinate bench had quashed and set aside the Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Acts of 2021 and 2023. It was declared that Section 18-A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, read with Rules 37-A and 37-C of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, apply only to development proposals for plots exceeding 20,000 square meters. The Court also declared that if fee was previously collected for change of land use or layout plan approval, no further fee shall be levied for subsequent development plans. The linkage of levies to market or guidance value under Section 45-B of the Karnataka Stamp Act was declared illegal, and all impugned circulars and demand notices were quashed. Clause 3.8 of the BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003, imposing 'Ground Rent', was also struck down. The present writ petition was allowed, with the impugned demand notices set aside, and directions issued to the BBMP to process the building license and plan sanction strictly in accordance with law.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2021 (Karnataka Act No.01 of 2022) and the Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2023 (Karnataka Act No.37 of 2024) are valid and applicable. 2. Whether Section 18-A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, read with Rules 37-A and 37-C of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, are applicable to all plot sizes or only to plots exceeding 20,000 square meters. 3. Whether fee collected for change of land use or layout plan approval precludes collection of fee for subsequent development plans. 4. Whether linking the fee leviable under Rule 37-A to the market value or guidance value under Section 45-B of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, is legal. 5. Whether Clause 3.8 of the Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Building Bye-laws, 2003, providing for 'Ground Rent', is legal. The petitioners sought to quash the demand notices based on these issues. The respondents, BBMP and State of Karnataka, were expected to argue in support of the demand notices and the validity of the impugned legislation and rules.
Sections Cited
Section 18-A, Rule 37-A, Rule 37-C, Section 45-B, Clause 3.8
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
The captioned petition is filed seeking following reliefs:
“a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ of like nature, or direction, quashing the Demand Notices dated 03-07-2024 bearing Nos.BBMP/EoDB/CH/14358/24-25 and BBMP/EoDB/CH/14359/24-25, both issued by the Respondent No.3 demanding payment towards Ground Rent (including GST) and Labour cess amount and other additional charges and levies at ANNEXURE-A & B.
b) Grant such other and further relief/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interests of justice and equity.”
It is brought to the notice of this Court that across the Bar, the issue is dealt by the Co-ordinate Bench in the reported judgment in W.P.No.23086/2022 and connected matters. The Co-ordinate Bench, while deciding the issue, has set-aside the Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2021 (Karnataka Act No.01 of 2022) and the Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23193 (Amendment) Act, 2023, (Karnataka Act No.37 of 2024). Therefore, this Court deems it fit to cull out the operative portion of the order, which reads as under; "ORDER (i) The writ petitions are partly allowed.
(ii) The Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2021 (Karnataka Act No.01 of 2022), is hereby quashed and set aside.
(iii) The Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2023, (Karnataka Act No.37 of 2024), is hereby quashed and set aside.
(iv) It is hereby declared that the provisions contained in Section 18-A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, read with Rules 37-A and 37-C of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, are applicable only in respect of ‘Development Plan’ containing the proposal for construction on plots measuring more than 20,000 square meters in extent and not in respect of plots measuring less than 20,000 square meters.
(v) It is hereby declared that if fee has been earlier collected for change of land use or while approving a layout plan, fee shall not be collected for subsequent ‘Development Plan’ in terms of the ‘Note’ found below TABLE I of Rule 37-A of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23193 (vi) It is hereby declared that the linking of the fee leviable under Rule 37-A of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, to the ‘market value’ or ‘guidance value’ as determined under Section 45-B of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, is illegal. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent-State Government and the BBMP to re-fix a standard after collecting empherical data.
(vii) Consequently, all the impugned Circulars which seek to give effect to the Rules 37-A and 37-C of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, are hereby quashed and set aside.
(viii) It is hereby declared that Clause 3.8 of the Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Building Bye- laws, 2003, providing for ‘Ground Rent’, is illegal and are accordingly quashed and set aside.
(ix) Consequently, all the impugned Demand Notices raised by the respondent-BBMP, in respect of the writ petitioners herein are also quashed and set aside. It would be advisable that the BBMP may come out with a scheme for ‘One Time Settlement’ and settle the levy and collect the fee generally acceptable to the citizens of Bengaluru. This would also augment the present situation."
In the present writ petition, the core issue raised stands substantially covered and decided by the HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23193 authoritative pronouncement of the coordinate bench, wherein the writ petitions were partly allowed and several consequential reliefs were granted. The Hon’ble Court, in unequivocal terms, quashed and set aside the Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Acts of 2021 and 2023 (Karnataka Act Nos.01 of 2022 and 37 of 2024 respectively).
The Court further declared that the provisions under Section 18-A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, read with Rules 37-A and 37-C of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, are applicable only to development proposals concerning plots exceeding 20,000 square meters, and not to smaller plots. Importantly, it was also held that if a fee has been previously collected for change of land use or approval of layout plan, no further fee shall be levied for subsequent development plans, in view of the explanatory 'Note' to Table I of Rule 37-A. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23193
The Court declared illegal the linkage of such levies to market or guidance value under Section 45-B of the Karnataka Stamp Act, and consequently, quashed all Circulars and demand notices issued to give effect to such unlawful interpretations. Clause 3.8 of the BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003, imposing 'Ground Rent', was also struck down.
In view of these comprehensive declarations and findings, it is submitted that the controversy raised in the present writ petition no longer survives for adjudication independently, as it is squarely covered by the binding judgment of the coordinate bench. In the light of the law laid down in the reported judgment substantially covering the issue, which is raised in the captioned writ petition, the writ petition is liable to be allowed strictly aligning to the operative portion of the said writ petition.
In view of the above, this Court proceeds to pass the following; HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23193 ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned demand notice dated 03.07.2024 issued by respondent No.3 as per Annexures-A & B is hereby set-aside.
(iii) Respondent- BBMP hereby directed to issue fresh/modified plan as the case may be.
(iv) Respondent- BBMP is hereby directed to forthwith process the petitioner's application seeking building license and sanction of the building plan, strictly in accordance with law.
(v) It is made clear that the issuance of the building license and approval plan shall not be withheld merely on the ground that the BBMP is contemplating to file an appeal against the reported judgment.
(vi) If the building license and sanction plan are issued, the same shall be subjected to the outcome of any appeal that may HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23193 be filed by the BBMP against the judgment.
Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off. (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE
MBM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 34
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.